Stumbling off the path.....

Aupmanyav said:
Unfortunately, higher designer and his messengers have zero evidence.
Click to expand...
So, apparently, do many of the presumptions and guesses in science.

If one does not believe in current science, according to you, they are unintelligent. One must ascribe to the faith of science to be intelligent even when there is zero evidence. From my perspective that is such a religious point of view that it cannot be denied.

I disagree with your assessment of course, but hey, differences make the world go 'round...

;)
 
juantoo3 said:
Just another in a long, long list of scientific speculations without evidence....(that must be taken on faith to be intelligent, or so some would like us to believe)
Click to expand...
Well, it's accepted by physics that the cause of the Big Bang isn't determined. So there's nothing to be taken on faith.

Problem would be to reject the possibility of design. It's undetermined. Imo

Scientific atheism isn't positioned to make declarations about first cause?
 
Last edited:
Aupmanyav said:
Well, there is evidence for 'inflation'. What we are missing is 10 raised to −32 s. Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
In other words, you are missing the first verse of Genesis. :)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
- Holy Bible - Genesis I -
 
muhammad_isa said:
In other words, you are missing the first verse of Genesis. :)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
- Holy Bible - Genesis I -
Click to expand...
I do not go by these millennium old books: Torah, Bible and Quran.
I also do not go by theist Hindu books.
 
Aupmanyav said:
So, you agree that there is no evidence for intelligent design. And they have been at it for 3000 years. :)
Click to expand...
Here is how I see it.

1. There is absolutely no scientific experiment that could currently be performed that could prove that life and/or the universe began on their own. A big reason for this is that there is no empirical evidence to back this claim

2. There is absolutely no scientific experiment that could currently be performed that could prove that life and/or the universe were created by another entity. A big reason for this is that there is no empirical evidence to back this claim.
 
moralorel said:
Here is how I see it.

1. There is absolutely no scientific experiment that could currently be performed that could prove that life and/or the universe began on their own. A big reason for this is that there is no empirical evidence to back this claim

2. There is absolutely no scientific experiment that could currently be performed that could prove that life and/or the universe were created by another entity. A big reason for this is that there is no empirical evidence to back this claim.
Click to expand...
1. I think self-replicating molecules, RNA and DNA are strong pointers to origin of life.
en.wikipedia.org

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
2. I think CMBR, homogenousity and isotropic universe established inflation.
en.wikipedia.org

Cosmic inflation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
3. Life in universe: We are talking of possibilities and not existence.
en.wikipedia.org

List of potentially habitable exoplanets - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Lots of people are working on these things, and Wikipedia gives ample references of the works.
 
Nobody has the definitive corner on creation...science has as many nuanced options as we have religions.

I am pretty much sunk in the agnostic camp thinking arguing the unarguable and unwinnable is a waste of brain space effort (he says on a religious fiscussion site).

I.will be pleasantly surprised if there is life and answers on the other side of the veiil.

I believe there are so many issues to attend to on earth, more worthwhile to encourage cooperation than argue the unarguable.
 
wil said:
I.will be pleasantly surprised if there is life and answers on the other side of the veil.
I believe there are so many issues to attend to on earth, more worthwhile to encourage cooperation than argue the unarguable.
Click to expand...
There is no other side.
Cooperation? Among humans? There has been none since the days of Cain and Abel.
"4. And Abel also brought an offering - fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. 5. The Lord had respect unto Abel and his offering, but unto Cain and his offering he had not respect"
 
Aupmanyav said:
There is no other side.
Cooperation? Among humans? There has been none since the days of Cain and Abel.
"4. And Abel also brought an offering - fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. 5. The Lord had respect unto Abel and his offering, but unto Cain and his offering he had not respect"
Click to expand...
There is no other side ...said with the exact same knowledge and authority of one who claims there is....belief.

None since Cain and Abel huh? So the world.has been in turmoil since a parable you don't believe in occurred? And you don't find that interesting?

No cooperation among humans eh? Then why are you here cooperating with humans? The ISS? Plenty of examples of folks working together in my world... your statement makes me feel sad for your world.
 
Aupmanyav said:
1. I think self-replicating molecules, RNA and DNA are strong pointers to origin of life.
en.wikipedia.org

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
2. I think CMBR, homogenousity and isotropic universe established inflation.
en.wikipedia.org

Cosmic inflation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
3. Life in universe: We are talking of possibilities and not existence.
en.wikipedia.org

List of potentially habitable exoplanets - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Lots of people are working on these things, and Wikipedia gives ample references of the works.
Click to expand...
1. Someone sees a supercomputer in a room. They point at this supercomputer and state "this is evidence that life began on its own". That supercomputer is nowhere close to as complicated or unique as RNA and DNA. So your opinion is very odd here. We build supercomputers at my job by the way. I have to assume you have no clue how complex RNA and DNA truly are. I suggest you see what the famous atheist Anthony Flew had to say about DNA.
2. What does this have to do with proving that the universe began on its own? I'm not asking for evidence of WHY the universe behaves the way it does or for evidence backing the Big Bang theory. I'm asking for empirical evidence that the universe started all on its own. There is none. We just know that something kicked off the "Big Bang". We don't know what.
3. "Possibilities" is NOT the same as "empirical evidence". I'm not saying that life doesn't exist outside of Earth. It SHOULD exist outside of Earth. But the very existence of life outside of Earth is NOT empirical evidence. You could prove that aliens created life on Earth and that still wouldn't explain how life itself began.

Wikipedia is a wiki site. It is NOT the best place for you to learn about these matters. I suggest you find a library, preferably one at a university, to start studying.

I also suggest you look up the definition of "empirical evidence".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top